‘”Substantial changes” to the current employment tribunal fee regime are required if an appropriate balance is to be struck between meeting some of the costs of operation and maintaining access to justice, according to an influential committee of MPs.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘MPs have hit out at the government’s approach to increasing court fees, with major changes needed to restore an “acceptable level of access to the employment tribunals”, and also urged ministers not to introduce any more civil court fee rises until there is research into the impact of what has been done to date, particularly on London’s competitiveness as a litigation centre.’
Litigation Futures, 20th June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk
‘The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has refused an application by six English mattress makers to use its new fast-track procedure (FTP) to claim damages for anti-competitive behaviour, given the complexity of the underlying issues.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Workers unfairly dismissed by their employers are being denied access to justice because of new Government court fees, a cross party committee of MPs has warned. Since the new employment tribunal fees were introduced in 2013 there has been a “precipitate drop” of almost 70 per cent in the number of cases being brought, the Commons Justice committee said. It can now cost as much as £1,200 simply to bring a claim.’
The Independent, 20th June 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘If I am an extremely well-regarded academic at Cambridge (don’t snigger at the back, I could be) and due to my eminence I do some unpaid voluntary work for a major international group (here, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change), the work in relation to which I do over my university email account, are those emails held by the University under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”)?’
Panopticon, 10th June 2016
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘One of the advantages of the Competition Appeal Tribunal is said to be the fact that its three-member panel typically includes an economist. But is that really such a big advantage over the High Court?’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 9th June 2016
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘It would be “wrong in principle” for the High Court to rule on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between two companies ahead of any actual proceedings, as this would deny the arbitral tribunal the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, a judge has found.’
OUT-LAW.com, 8th June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 492
‘When a party seeks to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the grounds that there had been bias or misconduct on the part of the First-tier Tribunal, the following guidance should be followed. (1) Any application for permission to appeal, if based (in whole or part) on such a ground, should be closely scrutinised. Such an allegation, if to be sufficient to merit the grant of permission at all, should ordinarily be expected to be properly particularised and appropriately evidenced. (2) If an allegation of bias or misconduct is raised which is adjudged sufficient to merit the grant of permission to appeal then it should be normal practice for the Upper Tribunal thereafter to obtain the written comments of the judge concerned. (3) Such written comments of the judge, where obtained, should be provided to the parties for the purposes of the appeal hearing in the Upper Tribunal. In addition, any such written comments should be retained on the file pending any possible further appeal to the Court of Appeal. (4) There may be some cases where it may be necessary to obtain the tribunal judge’s own note or record of the entire hearing since proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal are not ordinarily recorded and no transcript of the hearing will be available. (5) It will normally be likely to be of assistance to the Upper Tribunal to know what the advocate for the respondent has to say as to what happened or what was said before the First-tier Tribunal. Providing such observations is more likely to help produce a fuller and accurate picture of what actually happened or was said in the First-tier Tribunal. Where the advocate does not have a precise note or recollection, the Upper Tribunal can be told. (6) Whether oral evidence is needed at the hearing of the appeal on the issue of what happened or what was said below should be carefully considered by the parties. (7) It is likely to be important in appeals of this nature for the file to be reviewed and any directions given by an Upper Tribunal judge in good time before the substantive appeal hearing (para 53).’
WLR Daily, 27th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Winterburn and another v Bennett and another [2016] EWCA Civ 482
‘The claimant owners of a fish and chip shop claimed as a result of use over a number of years to have acquired by prescription the right for themselves and others using their premises to park on land comprising part of a car park belonging to the defendants. The defendants’ premises, which were next to the car park, had been used as a club and users of those premises used the car park. The entrance to the car park was adjacent to the claimants’ shop. The claimants had operated the shop from about 1987 or 1988 until 2012. Throughout that time, their suppliers had up to nine times a week pulled off the road into the disputed part of the car park and parked there for long enough to make their deliveries, and their customers had parked on the disputed land while they bought their fish and chips. On the whole that use of part of the car park did not interfere with the s’ operations but over a seven-year period there were 12 to 15 occasions on which the defendants asserted ownership of the disputed land, and, expressly or impliedly, asserted that the claimants and their suppliers and customers had no right to park on it. At all times until 2007 there was a sign attached to the wall of the building on one side of the entranceway to the car park, erected on behalf of the defendants, stating “Private car park. For the use of Club patrons only. By order of the Committee”, and a similar sign in the window of the club premises. The claimants claimed that their right to park, acquired by prescription by “lost modern grant”, had been established by their 20 years’ uninterrupted user “as of right”, namely, without force, without secrecy and without permission. The First-tier Tribunal found that, although the two signs were clearly visible, they were insufficient to prevent the claimants from acquiring the claimed parking rights. The Upper Tribunal allowed the defendants’ appeal, reversing that finding.’
WLR Daily, 25th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Gedi, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 409 (17 May 2016) is a case where the Home Office took it into their own hands to impose curfew restrictions over and above bail conditions those imposed by the First Tier Tribunal, as well as those they are entitled to impose as afforded to the Home Office by statute. The Court of Appeal were clear they had no such power to do so.’
Free Movement, 6th June 2016
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘The deferment rate is a key input in every enfranchisement claim whether it relates to the enfranchisement of a house, block of flats or the extension of a flat lease. The current deferment rate was set by the Lands Tribunal in Earl Cadogan v Sportelli [2007] 1 EGLR 153. This article explains what the deferment rate is and how the Tribunal arrived at the value which has been universally adopted since the decision in Sportelli. It then explores the status of the decision in Sportelli and asks whether it is time to re-set the deferment rate. The last part of the article looks at deferment rates for shorter leases.’
Tanfield Chambers, 31st May 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘While employment lawyers await the outcome of a government review of employment tribunal fees, research by a conciliatory body suggests one in five cases were withdrawn as a result of the ‘off-putting’ fees.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 1st June 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A man born with severe disabilities after his mother was raped by her father has won the right to claim compensation.’
BBC News, 1st June 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The High Court has rejected an appeal against striking off from a solicitor who “neither thought nor cared about” the rules governing his profession.’
Legal Futures, 31st May 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Nottingham City Council has applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal after the Upper Tribunal dismissed its challenge to terms of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licences that restricted the occupation of bedrooms to a particular type of occupier.’
Local Government Lawyer, 23rd May 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A doctor at the centre of sports doping allegations has been cleared of failing to tell a cancer patient her condition was terminal.’
The Guardian, 24th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has decided not to back a new housing court to deal with all property disputes, despite support for the move among lawyers in the sector.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd May 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has rejected an appeal by Richard Barnett, senior partner of collapsed conveyancing firm Barnetts, against his striking-off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).’
Legal Futures, 19th May 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Eclipse Film Partners v HMRC [2016] UKSC 24 has almost nothing to do with housing law. It was an appeal from the First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), via the UT (TCC) and the CA. It wasn’t even about the substantive issues in the case, rather, it was about who should pay for the costs of the bundles (which cost over £215,000 to produce – more than 700 files in the trial bundle!).’
Nearly Legal, 12th May 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Tate will come under fire again over its relationship with fossil fuel companies when it is forced to defend its refusal to disclose details of financial payments made to it by BP.’
The Guardian, 8th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024